Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
April 8, 2008 By Elisabeth Bumiller
WASHINGTON — Three presidential candidates and two very different views of Iraq will be on full display on Tuesday as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Baghdad, testifies before the Senate in a marathon session of war and White House ambitions.
All three senators running for president — John McCain of Arizona, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — will have a chance to question General Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad. Each of the three is determined to use the spectacle to advantage, but all face political risks as well as opportunities in the back-to-back hearings before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees.
“They’re going to be walking a tightrope over the Grand Canyon,” said Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming who was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that in 2006 recommended a change of administration strategy in Iraq. “Everyone is going to be watching this like hawks.”
Over all, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, both Democrats, are likely to criticize the costs of the war and a lack of political progress. Mr. McCain, an early supporter of the troop escalation who has acknowledged that his political fortunes are directly tied to American success in Iraq, will say that the “surge” is working, and is likely to add that the Democrats are ignoring the gains.
General Petraeus is expected to recommend at least a temporary halt in troop withdrawals and to speak more extensively about Iran’s influence in Iraq.
Mr. McCain, a Republican, has the logistical advantage in appearing before his two Democratic competitors. General Petraeus is set to testify first to the Armed Services Committee, beginning at 9:30 a.m., and Mr. McCain, the ranking Republican member, will be the second to speak, after the committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan.
Mrs. Clinton, a more junior member of the panel, will speak later. Mr. Obama, a junior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which is holding its hearing in the afternoon, will be the 13th on that panel to speak, perhaps after the evening news. When General Petraeus last appeared before the two panels, in September, the sessions lasted for 10 hours, ending after 7:30 p.m.
Mr. McCain’s strategy was foreshadowed in a speech he gave Monday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, Mo., where he praised General Petraeus and by clear implication his own approach to Iraq.
“We sent to Iraq additional troops, many of them on their third or fourth tour,” Mr. McCain said in the speech, “and a great, seasoned general to lead them, with a battle plan that at long last actually addressed the challenges we faced in Iraq.” The reduction in violence, Mr. McCain said, “has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi.”
As a result, he said, the United States is “no longer staring into the abyss of defeat.”
But politically, Mr. McCain risks looking like an eager cheerleader if he heaps too many accolades on General Petraeus. The senator’s advisers say he will also question the general closely about the recent assault against Shiite militias in Basra, when more than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers refused to fight or abandoned their posts. The battle cast doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained security forces, another likely line of questioning for Mr. McCain, as it was in September.
“We agree that the police, or the national police, have been a colossal failure,” Mr. McCain told General Petraeus at the time, when there were five presidential candidates among the 45 senators on the two panels. “What are we going to do about it?”
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama will probably deploy a tougher line of questioning of General Petraeus, given how their views of Iraq differ from Mr. McCain’s. They may also cite a report written by alumni of the Iraq Study Group, released on Sunday, that found some improvements in the country but came to a bleak conclusion.
“The U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago,” the report, by the U.S. Institute of Peace, concluded. “Lasting political development could take 5 to 10 years of full, unconditional U.S. commitment to Iraq.” (But Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, who have called for troop withdrawals, are not likely to cite the part of the report that concludes that a rapid reduction in United States forces could lead to “complete failure of the Iraqi state, massive chaos and even genocide.”)
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama may also question General Petraeus about Basra, as well as the recent rocket attacks from the Sadr City district of Baghdad into the Green Zone, the headquarters for Iraq’s central government and the United States Embassy.
But there are political risks if either appears too tough or negative on General Petraeus and, by extension, American troops. Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus last September that his report on Iraq required “the willing suspension of disbelief,” a phrase that has been hurled at her since by Republicans.
Perhaps the one who will benefit the most from the hearings is General Petraeus, who has been mentioned, along with dozens of others, as a possible running mate for Mr. McCain.
“Petraeus is a master of his craft,” Mr. Simpson said. “He’s not only a brilliant military man but a damned fine politician. So here we go.”
April 8, 2008 By Elisabeth Bumiller
WASHINGTON — Three presidential candidates and two very different views of Iraq will be on full display on Tuesday as Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Baghdad, testifies before the Senate in a marathon session of war and White House ambitions.
All three senators running for president — John McCain of Arizona, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois — will have a chance to question General Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad. Each of the three is determined to use the spectacle to advantage, but all face political risks as well as opportunities in the back-to-back hearings before the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees.
“They’re going to be walking a tightrope over the Grand Canyon,” said Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming who was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that in 2006 recommended a change of administration strategy in Iraq. “Everyone is going to be watching this like hawks.”
Over all, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, both Democrats, are likely to criticize the costs of the war and a lack of political progress. Mr. McCain, an early supporter of the troop escalation who has acknowledged that his political fortunes are directly tied to American success in Iraq, will say that the “surge” is working, and is likely to add that the Democrats are ignoring the gains.
General Petraeus is expected to recommend at least a temporary halt in troop withdrawals and to speak more extensively about Iran’s influence in Iraq.
Mr. McCain, a Republican, has the logistical advantage in appearing before his two Democratic competitors. General Petraeus is set to testify first to the Armed Services Committee, beginning at 9:30 a.m., and Mr. McCain, the ranking Republican member, will be the second to speak, after the committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan.
Mrs. Clinton, a more junior member of the panel, will speak later. Mr. Obama, a junior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, which is holding its hearing in the afternoon, will be the 13th on that panel to speak, perhaps after the evening news. When General Petraeus last appeared before the two panels, in September, the sessions lasted for 10 hours, ending after 7:30 p.m.
Mr. McCain’s strategy was foreshadowed in a speech he gave Monday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Kansas City, Mo., where he praised General Petraeus and by clear implication his own approach to Iraq.
“We sent to Iraq additional troops, many of them on their third or fourth tour,” Mr. McCain said in the speech, “and a great, seasoned general to lead them, with a battle plan that at long last actually addressed the challenges we faced in Iraq.” The reduction in violence, Mr. McCain said, “has opened the way for a return to something approaching normal political and economic life for the average Iraqi.”
As a result, he said, the United States is “no longer staring into the abyss of defeat.”
But politically, Mr. McCain risks looking like an eager cheerleader if he heaps too many accolades on General Petraeus. The senator’s advisers say he will also question the general closely about the recent assault against Shiite militias in Basra, when more than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and police officers refused to fight or abandoned their posts. The battle cast doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained security forces, another likely line of questioning for Mr. McCain, as it was in September.
“We agree that the police, or the national police, have been a colossal failure,” Mr. McCain told General Petraeus at the time, when there were five presidential candidates among the 45 senators on the two panels. “What are we going to do about it?”
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama will probably deploy a tougher line of questioning of General Petraeus, given how their views of Iraq differ from Mr. McCain’s. They may also cite a report written by alumni of the Iraq Study Group, released on Sunday, that found some improvements in the country but came to a bleak conclusion.
“The U.S. is no closer to being able to leave Iraq than it was a year ago,” the report, by the U.S. Institute of Peace, concluded. “Lasting political development could take 5 to 10 years of full, unconditional U.S. commitment to Iraq.” (But Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, who have called for troop withdrawals, are not likely to cite the part of the report that concludes that a rapid reduction in United States forces could lead to “complete failure of the Iraqi state, massive chaos and even genocide.”)
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama may also question General Petraeus about Basra, as well as the recent rocket attacks from the Sadr City district of Baghdad into the Green Zone, the headquarters for Iraq’s central government and the United States Embassy.
But there are political risks if either appears too tough or negative on General Petraeus and, by extension, American troops. Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus last September that his report on Iraq required “the willing suspension of disbelief,” a phrase that has been hurled at her since by Republicans.
Perhaps the one who will benefit the most from the hearings is General Petraeus, who has been mentioned, along with dozens of others, as a possible running mate for Mr. McCain.
“Petraeus is a master of his craft,” Mr. Simpson said. “He’s not only a brilliant military man but a damned fine politician. So here we go.”